alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2744 

To authorize the Administrator of the United States Agency for International 

Development to prescribe the manner in which programs of the agency 

are identified overseas, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 15, 2019 

Mr. MCCAUL (for himself and Mr. ENGEL) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To authorize the Administrator of the United States Agency 

for International Development to prescribe the manner 

in which programs of the agency are identified overseas, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘USAID Branding 

5 Modernization Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR BRANDING. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator of the United 

8 States Agency for International Development (USAID) is 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2744 IH

1 authorized to prescribe, as appropriate, the use of logos 

2 or other insignia of the USAID Identity, or the use of 

3 additional or substitute markings including the United 

4 States flag, to appropriately identify, including as required 

5 by section 641 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 

6 U.S.C. 2401), overseas programs administered by the 

7 Agency. 

8 (b) AUDIT.—Not later than one year after the date 

9 of the enactment of this Act, the Inspector General of the 

10 United States Agency for International Development shall 

11 submit to Congress an audit of compliance with relevant 

12 branding and marketing requirements of the Agency by 

13 implementing partners funded by the USAID, including 

14 any requirements prescribed pursuant to the authorization 

15 under subsection (a). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


1.       Elk Corporation of Dallas, a Delaware corporation, which owns all of
         the outstanding stock of (a) Elk Corporation of America, a Nevada
         corporation, (b) Elk Corporation of Alabama, a Delaware corporation,
         (c) Elk Corporation of Texas, a Nevada corporation, and (d) Elk
         Corporation of Arkansas, an Arkansas corporation.

2.       Cybershield, Inc., a Delaware corporation, which owns all of the
         outstanding stock of (a) Cybershield of Georgia, Inc. (formerly YDK
         America, Inc.), a Georgia corporation, (b) Cybershield of Texas, Inc.,
         a Delaware corporation, and (c) Cybershield International, Inc., a
         Delaware corporation.

3.       Elcor Management Corporation, a Nevada corporation.

4.       NELPA, Inc., a Nevada corporation.

5.       Elcor Service Limited Partnership, a Texas limited partnership.

6.       Chromium Corporation, a Delaware corporation.

7.       OEL, LTD, d/b/a Ortloff Engineers, LTD, a Nevada corporation.

8.       Ortloff de Venezuela, S.A., a Republic of Venezuela corporation.
**August 2001**

**DoD 4000.25-2-M**

*DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, November 26, 2019*

*Change 13*

**AP2.4. APPENDIX 2.4**

**PURPOSE CODES**

### NUMBER OF CHARACTERS:		One

### TYPE OF CODE:					Alphabetic 

### EXPLANATION:	Provides the owner of materiel with a means of identifying the purpose or reason for which an inventory balance is reserved.   Assigned and used only on an intra-Component basis by the Component owning the materiel.  NOTE:  Assigned purpose codes, and explanation for their use, are contained in the various regulatory procedures published by the Components.[footnoteRef:1]   [1:  In accordance with the approved change for Ownership Code 0 (Zero) to identify DoD Special Operations Forces ownership, DoD Component publications and procedures are to restrict alpha Purpose Code O from being assigned/used.  This restriction is made to avoid confusion between use of  alpha Purpose Code O and numeric Ownership Code 0, since ownership code and purpose code share a field under the constraints of the legacy 80-record position Defense Logistics Standard System (DLSS) transaction formats.  (See AMCL 15.)] 

### RECORD POSITIONS:  			70 

**AP2.4-**

AP2.4-1

APPENDIX 2.4
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3009 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3009

  To direct the Secretary of Transportation to establish a distracted 
        driving education grant program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 23, 2019

Miss Rice of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred 
         to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To direct the Secretary of Transportation to establish a distracted 
        driving education grant program, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Distracted Driving Education Act of 
2019''.

SEC. 2. DISTRACTED DRIVING EDUCATION GRANT PROGRAM.

    (a) Establishment.--Not later than October 1, 2020, the Secretary 
of Transportation shall establish a distracted driving education grant 
program.
    (b) Grant Authority.--In carrying out the program established under 
subsection (a), the Secretary may make grants, on a competitive basis, 
to nonprofit organizations.
    (c) Eligible Projects.--A grant made under subsection (b) shall be 
used to provide education to the public regarding the risks of 
distracted driving, including texting or otherwise using a personal 
wireless communications device while driving.
    (d) Applications.--To be eligible for a grant made under subsection 
(b), a nonprofit organization shall submit to the Secretary an 
application in such form, at such time, and containing such information 
as the Secretary determines appropriate.
    (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to the Secretary to make grants under subsection (b) 
$5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2021 and 2022.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2015146EN.01003204.xml

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/32

---

Order of the President of the Court of 14 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Dagmar Wedel, Rudi Wedel v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

(Case C-412/14) (1)

1

(2015/C 146/43)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.

1

---
1

Troutman, Jake (FAA)

From: Troutman, Jake (FAA)

Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 1:19 PM

To: 'contact@satstellar.com'

Cc: Pappas, Rob (FAA)

Subject: Request for Additional Information - Satstellar LLC

Dear Mr. Agenbroad:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA‐2015‐

1259).  This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

•             Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s), and type(s) (i.e., fixed wing, rotorcraft, lighter than air) for the proposed

UAS operation.  The description(s) should include the maximum weight (including payload).  This information can be

located in the aircraft manual(s).

Please submit the additional information (non‐proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any

proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov.  If you want us

to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 7/8/2015.  If we do not

receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267‐9521.

Sincerely,

Jake J Troutman

Program Analyst | Rulemaking

FAA Office of Aviation Safety

Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

202‐267‐9521
Excel Version of Engineering/Economics Tables

LBL, 3/3/95 Table 4.1 ENGINEERING/ECONOMIC CALCULATIONS FOR Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts with One F40 T12/RE70 LAMP COMMERCIAL SECTOR 2000 Electricity Cost ($ 1994/ kWh) $0.075 Annual Lighting Hours 4100 Labor Rates ($ 1994 per hour) $29.35 $42.10 Real Discount Rates 4% 8% 12% Period ( years) 11.71 PV Ballast Equip + PV Lamp

Equip + Total Ballast Normalized Annual Labor Cost Labor Cost Installed Service Fixture Energy Annual Payback Total LCC ($) Design (PV@8%) Cost Life Watts Use Elect (@ 8%) 4% 8% 12% No. Design Option ($ 1994) ($1994) ($ 1994) (years ) (kWh/yr) Cost($) (years)

----------- ----------------------------------- ------------------------ ----------------- ----------------- -------------- -------- -- -------------- -------------- ------------ -------- 0 Energy-Efficient Magnetic 22 .28 25.10 47.38 11 . 71 51.1 209 15 .71 NA 196 164 141 28♦69 25.10 _,M.36 1 Cathode Cutout 28.66 25.15) 

### 53.76 11 .71 49.0 201 15.06 9.9 196 166 143 28.69 2. 10-" 22.36 2 Electronic, Rapid Start 10% 39.11 25.10 64.21 11 .71 40.9 168 12.57 5.4 184 158 138 28 . 69 0 22.36 3 Electronic, Rapid Start 50% 39.11 25.10 64.21 11.71 39.5 162 12 . 14 4.7 180 154 136 28 .69 k 25 22 .36 4 Maximum Efficiency 39.11 25.10 64.21 11.71 38 . 3 157 11.76 4.3 176 152 133 28,66 25.10 .36 Lamp Replacement Cost: Lamp Lamp Lamp Lamp PV Lamp Equip + Ballast Ballast Ballast Ballast Equip Labor Time to Relamp Service Labor Cost Consumer Labor Time to Equip + Design Cost Cost Change Life Life ($1994) Price Cost Install Labor Cost No. Design Option ($1994) ($1994) (minutes) (hours) ( years ) 4% 8% 12.0% ($1994) ($1994) (minutes ) ($1994) 0 Energy-Efficient Magnetic 3.16 6.60 13.5 14000 3.41 28.69 25.10 22.36 12.46 9.82 165 22.28 1 Cathode Cutout 3.16 6.60 133 14000 3.41 28.69 25.10 22.36 18.84 9.82 16.5 28.66 2 Electronic, Rapid Start 10% 3.16 6.60 13.5 14000 3.41 28.69 25.10 22.36 29.29 9.82 165 39.11 3 Electronic, Rapid Start 50% 3.16 6.60 13.5 14000 3.41 28.69 25.10 22.36 29.29 9.82 16.5 39.11 4 Maximum Efficiency 3.16 6.60 13.5 14000 3.41 28.69 25.10 22.36 29.29 9.82 163 39.11



## Energy Analysis Program 3/13/95 Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
65




                                                                  EXHIBIT 11.2

                       ETHYL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
          COMPUTATION OF PRO FORMA BASIC AND DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE
              for the years ended December 31, 1997, 1996 and 1995
                     (In thousands except per share amounts)



     On October 2, 1997, the Company completed the repurchase of 34,999,995
shares of the Company's outstanding common stock with the purchase price and
related costs totalling about $328.9 million.  On February 29, 1996, the
Company completed the acquisition of the worldwide lubricant additives
business of Texaco Inc., ("Texaco") including manufacturing and blending
facilities, identifiable intangibles and working capital.  As a result of the
aforementioned stock repurchase and business acquisition, the Company believes
that the following pro forma financial information is important to enable the
reader to obtain a meaningful understanding of the Company's results of
operations.  The pro forma information is provided to present a summary of the
results of the Company as if the stock repurchase had occurred as of January
1, 1996 and the Texaco acquisition had occurred as of January 1, 1995.  The
pro forma data is for informational purposes only and may not necessarily
reflect the results of operations of Ethyl had the stock repurchase occurred
on January 1, 1996 and had the acquired business operated as part of the
Company for the years ended December 31, 1996 and 1995.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                 1997       1996       1995
<S>                                                            <C>        <C>        <C>
Pro forma net income (1)                                       $67,555    $81,024    $86,106
                                                               =======    =======    =======

Average number of shares of common stock outstanding (2,3)      83,449     83,444    118,436
                                                               =======    =======    =======

Pro forma basic and diluted earnings per share                   $0.81      $0.97      $0.73
                                                               =======    =======    =======
<FN>
Notes:

(1)   In the periods presented, the Company had only one class of common stock outstanding.

(2)   To determine the average number of shares of common stock and common stock equivalents,
      the average number of common shares and common stock equivalents outstanding (actual or
      assumed for equivalents) during each month were added together and the sum was then
      divided by 12.

(3)   For diluted earnings per share, the shares issuable upon the assumed exercise of
      outstanding stock options would be 7, 4 and 11 in 1997, 1996 and 1995, respectively,
      and the shares of common stock equivalents would have been 83,456, 83,448 and 118,447,
      respectively.







</FN>
</TABLE>
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2736 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify that the estate of a 

deceased veteran may receive certain accrued benefits upon the death 

of the veteran, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 14, 2019 

Mr. ZELDIN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify that the 

estate of a deceased veteran may receive certain accrued 

benefits upon the death of the veteran, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Veterans Estate 

5 Transfer to Survivors Act’’. 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2736 IH

1 SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF ELIGIBLE RECIPIENTS OF CER2 TAIN ACCRUED BENEFITS UPON DEATH OF 

3 BENEFICIARY. 

4 (a) ELIGIBILITY OF ESTATE.—Section 5121(a)(2) of 

5 title 38, United States Code, is amended— 

6 (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), 

7 by inserting ‘‘, or estate,’’ after ‘‘person’’; and 

8 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub9 paragraph: 

10 ‘‘(D) The estate of the veteran (unless the 

11 estate will escheat).’’. 

12 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

13 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to the death of an 

14 individual on or after the date of the enactment of this 

15 Act. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
---



EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATIONS OF STEVEN V. GUMMER, PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Nexplore Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, the undersigned officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



1.  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2.  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Date:  March 10, 2008 |  | /s/    STEVEN V. GUMMER    
|--------------------- |  | ---------------------------
|                      |  | Steven V. Gummer           
|                      |  | Principal Financial Officer





The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-QSB pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-B and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filings of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
No. 10-7677.

#### Mohammed Saleh, Petitioner v. Blake Davis, Warden.

562 U.S. 1158, 131 S. Ct. 958,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 386.

178 L. Ed. 2d 790,

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 398 Fed. Appx. 331.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jerry Banks, Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 467]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel FitzGerald, J.), rendered February 16, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 3V2 to 7 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict convicting defendant of robbery in the third degree was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility. The credible evidence established that defendant used force in an effort to retain merchandise that he had stolen.

The court properly rejected defendant’s request for an adverse inference charge with respect to a surveillance videotape made, and then erased, by the store at which the incident occurred, in the ordinary course of the store’s business. The record establishes that this tape was never in the possession of the police or prosecution, notwithstanding the People’s statement in a discovery form of their intent to introduce it at trial. The People have no constitutional or statutory duty to acquire, or prevent the destruction of, evidence generated and possessed by private parties *(see People v Reedy,*70 NY2d 826 [1987]; *People v Alvarez,*70 NY2d 375 [1987]), and the statement in the discovery form did not create such a duty. Furthermore, there is no indication that there was anything exculpatory on the tape.

The court properly exercised its discretion in briefly instructing the jury on the law governing the store’s security guards’ use of physical force against defendant (Penal Law § 35.25). Since a major theme of the defense was the alleged misuse of force by the security guards, this charge promoted the jury’s understanding of the issues. Furthermore, it did not constitute improper marshaling of evidence *(see People v Culhane,*45 NY2d 757, 758 [1978], *cert denied*439 US 1047 [1978]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Andrias, J.P., Rosenberger, Williams and Lerner, JJ.
No. 10-10646.

#### George M. Richardson, Petitioner v. Palm Club Association, et al.

565 U.S. 842, 132 S. Ct. 155,

181 L. Ed. 2d 71,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6337.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7144

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERT CARL DOUGLAS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CR-92-33, CA-97-561-2) Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 9, 1999 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Carl Douglas, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Robert Carl Douglas seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate ofappealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Douglas , No. CR-92-33; CA-97- 561-2 (M.D.N.C. May 29, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 23






                           CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


          We consent to the  incorporation  by reference  in this Annual  Report
          (Form 10-K) of Fieldcrest Cannon, Inc. of our report dated January 30,
          1996, included in the 1995 Annual Report to Shareholders of Fieldcrest
          Cannon, Inc.

          We also consent to the  incorporation by reference in the Registration
          Statements (Form S-8, Nos. 33-44703,  33-59149,  and 33-44705 and Form
          S-3, No.  33-52325)  pertaining  to the Director  Stock Option Plan of
          Fieldcrest  Cannon,  Inc.,  the 1995  Employee  Stock  Option  Plan of
          Fieldcrest Cannon, Inc., the Stock Option Agreement between Fieldcrest
          Cannon,  Inc.  and  James  M.  Fitzgibbons  and  the  $3.00  Series  A
          Convertible  Preferred  Stock,   respectively,   and  in  the  related
          Prospectuses of our report dated January 30, 1996, with respect to the
          consolidated financial statements  incorporated herein by reference in
          this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1995.





                                ERNST & YOUNG LLP



          Greensboro, North Carolina
          March 28, 1996


<PAGE>